Case 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338
|
|
- Clemence Oliver
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338 NEXUSCARD INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION v. Plaintiff, BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY THE KROGER CO., Defendant. Case No. 2:15-cv-961 PATENT CASE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF NEXUSCARD S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY PENDING COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW OR, ALTERNATIVELY, PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff Nexuscard Inc. ( Nexuscard ) hereby files this Response in Opposition to the Motion to Stay Pending Covered Business Method Review or, alternatively, Resolution of Kroger s Motion to Dismiss ( Motion ) filed by Defendant The Kroger Co. ( Kroger or Defendant ). In the Motion and the Covered Business Method Review, Kroger alleges that the claims of United States Patent No. 5,924,080 (the 080 Patent ) lack patentable subject matter. As will be shown below, Kroger relies on inapplicable law and fails to consider relevant facts in seeking the extraordinary relief of a stay of this case. Accordingly, the Court should deny the Motion to Stay. I. Background Nexuscard filed this action on June 5, 2015 (Dkt. No. 1) alleging that Kroger infringes the 080 Patent, and Kroger was served with Nexuscard s complaint on June 11, Dkt. No. 7. On July 2, 2015, Kroger filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the 080 Patent lacked patentable subject matter. Dkt. No. 8. Nexuscard filed its response to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 17). On September 3, 2015, the Court issued an order setting a scheduling conference in this case for September 30, 2015, and imposing deadlines for the parties to serve infringement 1
2 Case 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 339 and invalidity contentions. Dkt. No. 20. Nexuscard served its infringement contentions on September 21, 2015, asserting six claims of the `080 Patent. Only after receiving those infringement contentions and nearly five months after Nexuscard filed its action against Kroger, Kroger filed a Petition for Covered Business Method Review ( CBMR ) under 35 U.S.C. 321 challenging the validity of the claims of the 080 Patent. This action was filed after all of the briefing on Kroger s original motion to dismiss had long since been completed. In fact, in addition to the CBMR, Kroger and Brookshire together have filed four motions before this Court. II. THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE STAYED PENDING CBM REVIEW After a party has filed a petition requesting covered business method review, the patent owner has three months to file a preliminary response opposing the request, which is currently set for December 28, U.S.C Within three months of the time set for the patent owner s response, the PTAB will render a decision on whether or not to institute a proceeding, which would occur by March 28, U.S.C Then, and only if instituted and the CBMR becomes a proceeding, the dispute could take up to another 12 months to be completed, by March 28, Jury Selection for this matter is scheduled for November 7, Defendants are asking for the Court to stay the case at least until March 28, 2016 for a petition that has not even been instituted into a proceeding. If instituted, the defendants would ask the court to stay all activity until March 27, 2017, nearly 5 months after the original date scheduled for trial in this matter. A. VirtualAgility and Section 18 (b) do not apply. At the outset, it is important to stress that the Motion should be denied for the sole reason the Defendants did not even apply the correct legal standard. In the Leahy-Smith America 2
3 Case 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 340 Invents Act, Pub. L. No , 18, 125 Stat. 284, (2011), a four-factor test is provided for determining whether or not courts should grant a stay for a transitional proceeding: Section 18 of the AIA states in relevant part: (b) REQUEST FOR STAY. (1) IN GENERAL. If a party seeks a stay of a civil action alleging infringement of a patent under section 281 of title 35, United States Code, relating to a [CBMR]5 proceeding for that patent, the court shall decide whether to enter a stay.... Defendants proffered this test as the legal test warranting a stay in this case. However, the Federal Circuit has made expressly clear a Petition for CBMR is not a proceeding when filed, but is only a proceeding after it has been instituted. See Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 781 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, until the Director of the USPTO institutes the action, Section 18 does not apply and is not the operative standard for determining whether a stay should be instituted. Defendants reliance on Virtual Agility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc. 759 F.3d 1307, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014), is simply misplaced as the District Court ruled on the motion to stay after the CMBR was instituted. Those facts are not present in this case. Only a petition has been filed, but it has not been instituted. Therefore, there is no proceeding and the Court should not apply the four-factor test provided under Section 18 of the AIA. As that is only the test offered and supported by Defendants, there is no properly supported motion before the Court warranting a stay at this time. Kroger has failed to meet its burden and the Motion should be denied for this reason alone. 1 1 Faced with the recognition that it sought a stay based on the wrong law, Kroger may attempt to raise new arguments and evidence in the Reply, which should be rejected under the law. To the extent the Court will entertain such attempts, Nexuscard reserves the right to seek relief of filing a fully responsive opposition on new issues. 3
4 Case 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 341 Nexuscard recognizes that the Court still maintains inherent authority and can grant a motion to stay prior to the institution of a CBMR. However, in light of Kroger s failure to even apply the proper legal standard, the extreme relief requested, and for the other reasons set forth in herein, Nexuscard respectfully requests the Court deny Kroger s Motion. B. Facts do not support granting a stay pending the CBMR. The Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) has until March 28, 2016 to decide whether to institute the CBMR. A delay of nearly six months works real prejudice to Nexuscard. Nexuscard has a right to an interest in the timely enforcement of its patent right. Ambato Media, LLC v. Clarion Co., Ltd., 2:09-cv-242-JRG, 2012 WL , at *1 (E.D. Tex. Jan 23, 2012). Moreover, the CBMR does not address 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 (Dkt. No. 33-2). If Kroger is unsuccessful at institution of this CBMR, which Nexuscard contends will happen, Defendants can take further shots at the 080 Patent on additional grounds and request further delay. Additional support for why such a stay should not be granted is similar to the support for why the case should not be stayed pending resolution of Kroger s motion to dismiss, which is further discussed below. III. THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE STAYED PENDING RESOLUTION OF KROGER S MOTION TO DISMISS This issue is already before the Court through the actions of Kroger s co-defendant, Brookshire. Thus, rather than restate those points, Nexuscard incorporates its Opposition and Sur-reply herein by reference. Dkt. Nos. 23 and 37. That being said, Kroger set forth four points to try and evidence support for a stay and Nexuscard addresses each of those points below. 4
5 Case 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 342 A. Facts and claim construction are significant factors to determine before deciding Kroger s motion. This Court is well aware of the law surrounding validity and patentable subject matter. The Court is called to determine if patent claims are directed to an abstract idea and if the elements of the claim provide an inventive concept, essentially apply the two-prong test from Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int l, 573 U.S., 134 S. Ct (2014). When analyzing the second prong of the test, such as when claim elements either individually or as a whole are conventional or routine, facts are often important. The USPTO Guidelines provide that examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional. 2 Because none of the 080 claim elements have been described in current case law, an examiner would have to rely on those with skill in the art. Those facts have not been determined or disclosed yet in this case. Facts are important to make such a determination. Kroger s support for its assertion that claim elements are conventional and routine is found predominantly in the prior art. Thus, factual support should be considered when considering these issues. Moreover, the claim terms have not been construed. The 080 patent has 2 independent claims, with each including means plus function claim language and over 17 elements. None of these terms have been construed. Kroger s motion to dismiss fails to overcome this District s precedence when it comes to early Rule 12 motions to dismiss for lack of patentable subject matter by failing to show that the 080 patent claims are the exception, not the rule. While handling the issue of section 101 eligibility at the pleading stage is permissible, those issues are often inextricably tied to claim construction. Thus, it seems a definitive ruling on eligibility 2 5
6 Case 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 343 before claim construction is only warranted in narrow circumstances, making such a ruling the exception rather than the rule. Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. v. Century Link, Inc.,2015 WL at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2015); see also Presqriber, LLC v. AO Capital Partners LLC, Case No. 6:14-cv-440, Dkt. No. 125 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2015) (denying motion to dismiss at pleadings stage, without prejudice to re-urging after claim construction). B. Kroger s support for a stay of discovery for any dispositive motion is an over generalization. The stay is not automatic as Kroger requests. A stay is not automatic and should not issue based on the facts presented by Kroger. Adopting Kroger s reasoning and granting the Motion in this case would establish a precedent whereby anytime a CBMR or other dispositive motion has been filed, the Court should enter a stay. A de facto automatic stay approach has not been this Court s practice and Nexuscard would urge the Court not to adopt such a rule now. Additionally, in the case and the language cited by Kroger, Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581 (5th Cir. 1987), the Fifth Circuit stated that the trial court had broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery. Nexuscard agrees with this Court s broad discretion and believes it should not be used to stay this case under these facts. In this case, which is far different from Petrus, there are important factual and legal issues relevant to dispositive motion practice that can only be explored and correctly decided after discovery and claim construction. C. The balance of hardships does not favor a stay. A Plaintiff has an interest in the timely enforcement of its patent right. Ambato Media, LLC v. Clarion Co., Ltd., 2:09-cv-242-JRG, 2012 WL , at *1 (E.D. Tex. Jan 23, 2012). A stay would negatively delay and unduly prejudice Nexuscard s enforcement of its patent rights. A Markman hearing date is set; a trial date is set. 6
7 Case 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 344 Moreover, a stay will result in real prejudice to Nexuscard. Nexuscard s owner is of significant age and has had numerous life threatening health problems. See Declaration of Adam L. Baumli at 2. Moreover, the inventor of the 080 Patent has health problems. Id. at 3. The attorney responsible for prosecuting the 080 Patent before the USPTO is over 80 years old and has a life threatening health procedure scheduled soon. Id. at 4. Nexuscard is not trying to be overly dramatic, but a six month delay could prove to be extremely significant. Nexuscard and Kroger both will want to depose these potential witnesses. Moreover, Nexuscard deserves the right to enforce their patent rights while these men are still capable of testifying. Kroger s attempts to argue that it faces significant costs and procedural disclosure obligations should be rejected. Kroger s actions reveal that cost is of minimal concern. Kroger has spent tens of thousands of dollars (or more) on legal and filing fees just for the CMBR based on an issue already briefed in this Court. The reality is that Kroger s real goal is to manipulate the patent system and office to financially cripple Nexuscard. D. A stay is not warranted The fourth reason Kroger raises regarding the stay is simply the third reason restated. Kroger requests the Court to stay the case so that Kroger can delay the costs associated with litigation. Kroger s actions show a defendant where costs are not a major concern. On the other hand, Nexuscard has made clear that it will be substantially prejudiced by the stay. Nexuscard has health concerns with several important individuals who will probably be called upon as a witness. Moreover, this is a strong patent with clear infringement. The merits of Nexuscard s case vastly outweigh Kroger s potential costs. Nexuscard has an interest in the timely enforcement of his patent rights. 7
8 Case 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 345 IV. THIS CASE FAILS TO PRESENT COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR A STAY In Novelpoint Security LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co., No 2:13-cv-84, Order at 1 (E.D. Tex. July 2, 2013), this Court denied a motion to stay, referring to a standard discovery order. The Court noted that its practice was not to grant stays early in the case pending motion to dismiss and the defendant had not provided compelling evidence otherwise. Id. The same is true here. Kroger s circumstances here are not compelling. There are only two defendants in this case and all the issues regarding discovery and other tangential factors were present and argued in the Novelpoint matter. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in this opposition brief, Nexuscard respectfully requests that the Court deny Kroger s motion to stay. Finally, Nexuscard respectfully requests that the Court grant Nexuscard such other and further relief to which it is entitled. 8
9 Case 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 346 Dated: October 19, 2015 Respectfully submitted, /s/andrew W. Spangler Andrew W. Spangler TX SB # SPANGLER LAW, P.C. 208 N. Green St., Suite 300 Longview, TX Telephone (903) Facsimile (903) spangler@spanglerlawpc.com Adam L. Baumli TX SB # BAUMLI LAW FIRM 7116 Nicki Ct. Dallas, Texas Telephone: (214) Facsimile: (214) adam@thebaumlilawfirm.com Attorneys for Nexuscard Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court s CM/ECF system, in accordance with Local Rule CV-5(a)(3), on this the 19th day of October, /s/andrew W. Spangler Andrew W. Spangler 9
L DATE FILED: ~-~-~ lll'f
Case 1:13-cv-03777-AKH Document 154 Filed 08/11/14 I USDC Page SL ~ y 1 of 10 I DOCJ.. 1.' '~"'"T. ~ IFLr"l 1-... ~~c "' ' CALL\ ELED DOL#: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT L DATE FILED: ~-~-~ lll'f SOUTHERN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION NEXUSCARD, INC. Plaintiff, v. BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY, Defendant. THE KROGER CO. Case No. 2:15-cv-961-JRG (Lead
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H Defendants.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED October 09, 2018 David J. Bradley, Clerk NEURO CARDIAC
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION EMG TECHNOLOGY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ETSY, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-00484-RWS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
More informationCase 6:12-cv MHS-JDL Document 48 Filed 02/06/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1365
Case 6:12-cv-00398-MHS-JDL Document 48 Filed 02/06/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1365 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC vs.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Defendants. CONTENT GUARD HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 14-12298-DJC WANGS ALLIANCE CORP., d/b/a WAC LIGHTING
More informationCase 2:16-cv JRG-RSP Document 9 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 42
Case 2:16-cv-01333-JRG-RSP Document 9 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 42 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION INNOVATIONS LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS [MARSHALL / TYLER / TEXARKANA] DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS [MARSHALL / TYLER / TEXARKANA] DIVISION [PLAINTIFF][, et al.,] v. [DEFENDANT][, et al.] Case No. [2 / 6 / 5]:00-CV-000-[JRG / RSP /
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION O R D E R
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DATATREASURY CORP., Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & CO., et al. Defendants. O R D E R 2:06-CV-72-DF Before the Court
More informationFactors Affecting Success of Stay Motions Pending Inter Partes & Covered Business Method Review
Factors Affecting Success of Stay Motions Pending Inter Partes & Covered Business Method Review Hosted by The Federal Circuit Bar Association October 21, 2016 Moderator: Kevin Hardy, Williams & Connolly
More informationCase 2:13-cv RSP Document 143 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 6760
Case 2:13-cv-00791-RSP Document 143 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 6760 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION FREENY, ET AL. v. MURPHY OIL CORPORATION,
More informationCase 2:05-cv TJW Document 212 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:05-cv-00195-TJW Document 212 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DIGITAL CHOICE OF TEXAS, LLC V. CIVIL NO. 2:05-CV-195(TJW)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION KAIST IP US LLC, Plaintiff, v. No. 2:16-CV-01314-JRG-RSP SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al., Defendants. REPORT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION EFFECTIVE EXPLORATION, LLC, v. Plaintiff, BLUESTONE NATURAL RESOURCES II, LLC, Defendant. Case No. 2:16-cv-00607-JRG-RSP
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CHARLES C. FREENY III, BRYAN E. FREENY, and JAMES P. FREENY, v. Plaintiffs, FOSSIL GROUP, INC., Defendant. Case No.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BENEFICIAL INNOVATIONS, INC., v. Plaintiff, BLOCKDOT, INC.; CAREERBUILDER, LLC.; CNET NETWORKS, INC.; DIGG, INC.;
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION E2E PROCESSING, INC., Plaintiff, v. CABELA S INC., Defendant. Case No. 2:14-cv-36-JRG-RSP MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO THE COUNTERCLAIMS OF GOOGLE INC.
Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 145 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC F/K/A POLARIS IP, LLC, v. GOOGLE, INC., et al
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-jst ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY Re: ECF
More informationCase 2:14-cv JRG Document 68 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 2010
Case 2:14-cv-00639-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 2010 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SYNERON MEDICAL LTD. v. Plaintiff,
More informationA Rebalancing Act: Early Patent Litigation Strategies in Light of Recent Federal Circuit Cases ACC Litigation Committee Meeting
ACC Litigation Committee Meeting Demarron Berkley Patent Litigation Counsel Jim Knox Vice President, Intellectual Property Matt Hult Senior Litigation Patent Counsel Mackenzie Martin Partner Dallas July
More informationIntellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings
Intellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings By Ann Fort, Pete Pappas, Karissa Blyth, Robert Kohse and Steffan Finnegan The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) created
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HTC CORPORATION, et al., HTC CORPORATION, et al., KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al., V. PLAINTIFF, KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al., SAN JOSE DIVISION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ZIRCORE, LLC, v. Plaintiff, STRAUMANN MANUFACTURING, INC., STRAUMANN USA, STRAUMANN HOLDING AG, DENTAL WINGS, INSTITUT
More informationCase 4:12-cv O Document 184 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID 4824
Case 4:12-cv-00546-O Document 184 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID 4824 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION WILLIAMS-PYRO, INC., v. Plaintiff, WARREN
More informationCase 2:13-cv JRG-RSP Document 12 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 104
Case 2:13-cv-00014-JRG-RSP Document 12 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 104 PERSONAL AUDIO, LLC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION v. Plaintiff,
More informationCase 2:16-cv JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 457
Case 2:16-cv-01096-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 457 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION JOE ANDREW SALAZAR, Plaintiff, vs.
More informationCase 2:05-cv DF-CMC Document 364 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-00163-DF-CMC Document 364 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION EPICREALM, LICENSING, LLC v No. 2:05CV163 AUTOFLEX
More informationCase 5:08-cv JW Document 49 Filed 02/05/2009 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case :0-cv-0-JW Document Filed 0/0/00 Page of MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. Gayle Rosenstein Klein (State Bar No. ) Park Avenue, Suite 00 New York, NY 00 Telephone: () 0-0 Facsimile: () 0- Email: gklein@mckoolsmith.com
More informationSENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL
SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL CLIENT MEMORANDUM On Tuesday, March 8, the United States Senate voted 95-to-5 to adopt legislation aimed at reforming the country s patent laws. The America Invents Act
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BISCOTTI INC., Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORP., Defendant. ORDER Case No. 2:13-cv-01015-JRG-RSP Before the Court are
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC., ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 1:13-cv-1364 -v- ) ) HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, CORP., )
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, : Case No. 1:12-cv-552 : Plaintiff, : Judge Timothy S. Black : : vs. : : TEAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et
More informationDefendant. SUMMARY ORDER. Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc., d/b/a PPC commenced this action
Case 5:11-cv-00761-GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PPC BROADBAND, INC., d/b/a PPC, v. Plaintiff, 5:11-cv-761 (GLS/DEP) CORNING
More informationThe Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO
The Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO By Lawrence A. Stahl and Donald H. Heckenberg The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) makes numerous
More information2012 Winston & Strawn LLP
2012 Winston & Strawn LLP How the America Invents Act s Post-Issuance Proceedings Influence Litigation Strategy Brought to you by Winston & Strawn s Intellectual Property practice group 2012 Winston &
More information2015 WL Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division.
2015 WL 5675281 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. SimpleAir, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Google Inc., et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:14-cv-00011-JRG
More informationCase 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 27 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 167
Case 2:15-cv-01650-JRG-RSP Document 27 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 167 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MISTY ELLISON, LAWANNA LACEY & GARRETT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 167 BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION v. NO. 2:07-CV-371-CE GOOGLE, INC., et al. PLAINTIFF'S
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC, v. Plaintiff, T MOBILE USA, INC., T-MOBILE US, INC., ERICSSON INC., TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET
More informationCase 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:15-cv-01059-MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : No. 15-1059
More informationCase 2:16-cv JRG-RSP Document 123 Filed 03/09/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 842
Case 2:16-cv-00525-JRG-RSP Document 123 Filed 03/09/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 842 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MARINER IC INC., Plaintiff, v. FUNAI
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
0 0 EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC, v. Plaintiff, MILLENIAL MEDIA, INC., Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION infringement of the asserted patents against
More informationUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. Patent Trial and Appeal Board
United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board PTAB Organization Statutory Members of the Board The Board is created by statute (35 U.S.C. 6). 35 U.S.C. 6(a) provides: There shall
More informationCase 2:05-cv TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-00195-TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DIGITAL CHOICE OF TEXAS, LLC V. CIVIL NO. 2:05-CV-195(TJW)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NOS.
Case :-cv-00-dms-wvg Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 IN RE: AMERANTH CASES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NOS. cv0 DMS (WVG) cv0 DMS (WVG) cv0 DMS (WVG) cv0 DMS
More informationCase 8:13-cv VMC-MAP Document 91 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID 2201 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:13-cv-02240-VMC-MAP Document 91 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID 2201 STONEEAGLE SERVICES, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:13-cv-2240-T-33MAP
More informationCase 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 229 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID 8774
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 229 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID 8774 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION PARKERVISION, INC., PLAINTIFF, v.
More informationCase 6:12-cv MHS-CMC Document 1645 Filed 07/22/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 20986
Case 6:12-cv-00499-MHS-CMC Document 1645 Filed 07/22/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 20986 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION BLUE SPIKE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case
More informationCase 1:12-cv GMS Document 60 Filed 12/27/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1904
Case 1:12-cv-00617-GMS Document 60 Filed 12/27/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1904 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE AIP ACQUISITION LLC, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 12-617-GMS LEVEL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC & INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC, v. Plaintiffs, J. CREW GROUP, INC., Defendant. CASE NO.
More informationDiscovery and Fact Investigation: New Patent Office Procedures under America Invents Act
2013 Korea-US IP Judicial Conference (IPJC) Seminar 1 Discovery and Fact Investigation: New Patent Office Procedures under America Invents Act Nicholas Groombridge Discovery in District Court Litigations
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Case 3:07-cv-00015 Document 7 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SHERRI BROKAW, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:07 CV 15 K DALLAS
More informationPresentation to SDIPLA
Presentation to SDIPLA Anatomy of an IPR Trial by Andrea G. Reister Chair, Patent Office and Advisory Practice Covington & Burling LLP February 20, 2014 Outline 1. Overview 2. Preliminary Phase 3. Decision
More informationCase No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and WILDTANGENT, INC.
Case No. 2010-1544 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, HULU, LLC, Defendant, and WILDTANGENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
More informationPaper Entered: February 6, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 34 571-272-7822 Entered: February 6, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ZTE (USA) INC., Petitioner, v. FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION
More informationCase3:12-cv SI Document33 Filed10/21/14 Page1 of 10
Case:-cv-00-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 Shelley Mack (SBN 0), mack@fr.com Fish & Richardson P.C. 00 Arguello Street, Suite 00 Redwood City, CA 0 Telephone: (0) -00 Facsimile: (0) -0 Michael J. McKeon
More informationHow to Handle Complicated IPRs:
How to Handle Complicated IPRs: Obviousness Requirements in Recent CAFC Cases and Use of Experimental Data OCTOBER 2017 nixonvan.com District Court Lawsuit Statistics Number of New District Court Cases
More informationCase 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 29 Filed 12/02/10 Page 1 of 8
Case :0-cv-0-RLH -PAL Document Filed /0/0 Page of 0 SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 shawn@manganolaw.com SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. 0 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 0 Las Vegas, Nevada -0 (0) - telephone
More informationU.S. Patent and Trademark Office Issues Proposed Rules for Post-Issuance Patent Review under the America Invents Act
February 16, 2012 Practice Groups: Intellectual Property Intellectual Property Litigation U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Issues Proposed Rules for Post-Issuance Patent Review under the America Invents
More informationPost-Grant Patent Proceedings
Post-Grant Patent Proceedings The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), enacted in 2011, established new post-grant proceedings available on or after September 16, 2012, for challenging the validity of
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE INVENTOR HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BED BATH & BEYOND INC., Defendant. C.A. No. 14-448-GMS I. INTRODUCTION MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Inventor
More informationCase: 3:13-cv bbc Document #: 48 Filed: 11/14/13 Page 1 of 9
Case: 3:13-cv-00346-bbc Document #: 48 Filed: 11/14/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION NAVICO, INC. and NAVICO HOLDING AS Plaintiffs, v. GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. and GARMIN USA, INC. Defendants. Civil
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17-CV-84 RWS-JDL v.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION REALTIME DATA LLC, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17-CV-84 RWS-JDL v. ECHOSTAR CORPORATION et al., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION. CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L., Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP (lead) v.
Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al Doc. 415 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L., Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP
More informationUSPTO Post Grant Trial Practice
Bill Meunier, Member Michael Newman, Member Peter Cuomo, Of Counsel July 18, 2016 Basics: Nomenclature "IPRs" = Inter partes review proceedings "PGRs" = Post-grant review proceedings "CBMs" = Post-grant
More informationCase 2:15-cv JRG Document 1 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1
Case 2:15-cv-01240-JRG Document 1 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1 TURN IP LLC, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Civil Action
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION. v. Case No. 4:17-cv ALM-KPJ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION AMERICAN GNC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 4:17-cv-00620-ALM-KPJ ZTE CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendant. REPORT
More informationCase 7:16-cv O Document 85 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2792
Case 7:16-cv-00108-O Document 85 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2792 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC.; SPECIALITY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 OPEN TEXT S.A., Plaintiff, v. ALFRESCO SOFTWARE LTD, et al., Defendants. Case No. -cv-0-jd ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 0
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No: 8:16-cv-3110-MSS-TGW EIZO, INC., Defendant. / ORDER THIS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. Civil Case No. 2:07-cv-511 (CE)
More informationCase 2:13-cv KAM-AKT Document 124 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2044
Case 2:13-cv-01276-KAM-AKT Document 124 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2044 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------- SPEEDFIT LLC and AUREL
More informationNo OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, v. GREENE S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, ET AL., Respondents.
No. 16-712 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, v. GREENE S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, ET AL., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
More informationCase 6:16-cv RWS-JDL Document 209 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 17201
Case 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL Document 209 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 17201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION REALTIME DATA, LLC, Plaintiff, CIVIL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CANRIG DRILLING TECHNOLOGY LTD., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-0656 TRINIDAD DRILLING L.P., Defendant. MEMORANDUM
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
ContourMed Inc. v. American Breast Care L.P. Doc. 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED March 17, 2016
More informationCase 1:16-cv JPO Document 75 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 X : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : X. Plaintiffs,
Case 116-cv-03852-JPO Document 75 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------- COMCAST CORPORATION,
More informationTrends From 2 Years Of AIA Post-Grant Proceedings
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Trends From 2 Years Of AIA Post-Grant Proceedings
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES INNOVATIONS, LLC v. GUARDIAN PROTECTION SERVICES, INC. Case No. 2:15-cv-1431-JRG-RSP
More informationT he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly.
BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 84 PTCJ 828, 09/14/2012. Copyright 2012 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
More informationUS Supreme Court Issues Important Opinion on Patent Eligibility of Computer- Implemented Inventions
US Supreme Court Issues Important Opinion on Patent Eligibility of Computer- Implemented Inventions Andy Pincus Partner +1 202 263 3220 apincus@mayerbrown.com Stephen E. Baskin Partner +1 202 263 3364
More informationCase5:13-md LHK Document129 Filed01/27/14 Page1 of 7
Case:-md-00-LHK Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 IN RE: GOOGLE INC. GMAIL LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case
More informationPaper 10 Tel: Entered: February 9, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: February 9, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY, BITCO GENERAL INSURANCE
More informationDEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
The University of Texas School of Law 16th ANNUAL ADVANCED PATENT LAW INSTITUTE DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION October 27-28, 2011 Austin, Texas Kenneth R. Adamo* Kirkland & Ellis LLP 300 N. LaSalle
More informationCase4:12-cv JSW Document34 Filed09/19/14 Page1 of 11
Case:-cv-0-JSW Document Filed0// Page of 0 JAMES C. OTTESON, State Bar No. jim@agilityiplaw.com THOMAS T. CARMACK, State Bar No. tom@agilityiplaw.com PHILIP W. MARSH, State Bar No. phil@agilityiplaw.com
More informationCase 2:04-cv TJW Document 424 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case :04-cv-000-TJW Document 44 Filed 0/1/007 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION O MICRO INTERNATIONAL LTD., Plaintiff, v. BEYOND INNOVATION
More informationCase 7:14-cv O Document 57 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 996
Case 7:14-cv-00087-O Document 57 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION NEWCO ENTERPRISES, LLC, v. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 14-CV Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, Counterclaim-Defendants.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE INC. et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 14-CV-1466 FIRST QUALITY BABY PRODUCTS LLC et al., Defendants. FIRST QUALITY BABY
More informationCase 2:12-cv WCB Document 290 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 11071
Case 2:12-cv-00147-WCB Document 290 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 11071 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SABATINO BIANCO, M.D., Plaintiff,
More informationCase 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1
Case 2:16-cv-00150 Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION POSITIONTECH LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL
Present: The Honorable Andrea Keifer Deputy Clerk JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Not Present Attorneys Present
More informationPATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.
Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 82 PTCJ 789, 10/07/2011. Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com PATENT REFORM
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ACCASVEK, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:13-cv-636 v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case No. :1-cv-01-PSG 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPLE, INC., et al., APPLE, INC., et al., (Re: Docket No. 1) Case No. :1-cv-01-PSG (Re:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I. INTRODUCTION
United States District Court 0 VENDAVO, INC., v. Plaintiff, PRICE F(X) AG, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I. INTRODUCTION Case No. -cv-00-rs ORDER DENYING
More informationEllen Matheson. PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY THE CASE (Doc. 100)
Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 116 Filed 12/19/12 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:3544 Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Ellen Matheson Deputy Clerk ATTORNEYS PRESENT
More informationCase 2:16-cv JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/19/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Case 2:16-cv-01186-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/19/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SPIN MASTER, LTD., Plaintiff, v. HELLODISCOUNTSTORE.COM,
More information